BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION.
KAMRUP
C.C.No.81/2016
Present: I) Shri A.F.A.Bora, M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S(Rtd.)-President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Sri Jamatul Islam, B.Sc Former Dy
Director, FCS & CA - Member
Sri Prahlad Kr.Agarwal - Complainant
Jib-Nihar Apartment,
Flat No.4C, 4th floor, Tarun Nagar,
Bye Lane No. 5, ABC, G.S.Road,
Guwahati-781005( Assam).
-vs-
I) E-Age World - Opposite party
3/24, 2nd Floor,
Model Town-1,
Delhi- 110009,
Delhi
Appearance
Learned advocate Mr.N.J.Medhi for the complainant .
None appeared for the opp. party
Date of filing written argument:- 21.1.2019
Date of oral argument:- 17.8.2021
Date of judgment: - 26.8.2021
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1) This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by one Sri Prahlad Kr.Agarwal against E- Age World, Model Town-1 Delhi -110009. The complainant claims himself to be a customer of opp.party/ responded who is a dealer of mobile hand set and sale of its product by E.marketing through Amazon. The complainant purchased one Apple-I-Phone 5 64 G.B. white on 22.8.2015 from the E-age World placing order from Guwahati through internet and the said item was received on 3.9.2015 . Accordingly the payment was made through ATM debit card from the complainant’s account of SBI bearing account No. 32749789507, Ulubari Branch , for an amount of Rs.24,444/-. After purchasing complainant put sim card and tried to make it active, but no network was shown. In such a situation, the complainant contacted the dealer (opp.party)through e.mail to resolve the problem. The opp.party talked with the complainant through phone and advised to put on sim card and he tried to do so, but phone showed out of service.
2) Thereafter on 5.5.15 the team of E-Age World made contact and forwarded some steps to follow for restoring the device. But no fruitful result came out. After that the respondent arrange to pick up the mobile hand set from the complainant through FEDEX Express for repairing. After repairing the same the mobile hand set Apple – I –phone sent back to the complainant on 26.9.15. After receiving the mobile phone , the complainant used it till Feb, 2016 without any problem. But after some days in the last week of February the mobile again started showing same problem and on getting harassment complainant again approached the respondent to resolve the problem. In the mean time complainant approached Apple Customer Service, Guwahati Service Centre to know the problem and the Customer Service Centre after examining IMEI number informed that the technical support of the mobile had already expired. Further Apple Service Centre, Guwahati informed the complainant that the Apple –I-Phone was not within the warranty period , the phone having IMEI no. 013737001348988 which had already been used for 500 days. From the customer service it was informed to the complainant that the warranty period for Apple-I-Phone is one year from the date of purchase.
3) After the above information the complainant forwarded the Apple Service Report to the respondent through e.mail. But respondent informed him that they have provided 6 month seller warranty which is a contradictory statement made by the complainant. The complainant purchased Apple –I-Phone on 22.8.15 and as per policy of the Apple –I-Phone complainant should get one year warranty instead of 6 months seller warranty and as such it is alleged that respondent by a high handed manner deceived the complainant from getting one year warranty.
4) Thereafter a letter dtd. 6.4.16 was issued to the respondent through his legal counsel to refund the money of new I-phone because the respondent has cheated the complainant by giving a defective mobile with 6 months seller warranty which is against the policy of Apple I-Phone.
5) That a reply letter dtd. 4.5.16 given by the counsel of the respondent has been received where it has been stated that complainant is trying to harassed the respondent and it was shocked that the complainant after received of the reply letter, the said mobile phone need to be sent to the respondent within 15 days for better check up from authorized service centre and if not done the legal action should be initiated to the complainant. Accordingly the complainant has sent his mobile hand set to the respondent within the period of 15 days after received of the letter notice dtd. 4.5.16. The said phone was dispatched to the respondent on 20.5.16 through DTDC Courier service and delivered to the respondent on 23.5.16. The respondent through e.mail informed the complainant that they had sent the mobile to one Mr.Sanjib in Beltola, but that person was not known to the complainant and through e.mail the complainant requested the respondent to sent the mobile in complainant’s permanent address. As well as through telephonic conversation the complainant also requested to exchange the mobile with new one.
6) The complainant prays before this commission and direct the respondents to make payment of Rs.63,843.92/- with interest which includes cost of the mobile hand set (Rs.24,444.00), loss of interest per annum 18% (Rs.4,399.00) , compensation of mental distress (Rs.20,000.00) as well as litigation and any other expenses (Rs.15,000.00) .
7) The opp.party have not turned up and ultimately vide order dtd. 14.2.2018 the proceeding against the opp.party is taken for exparte hearing. The complainant filed evidence in affidavit and ultimately submitted his written argument on 21.1.19. Thereafter, matter is pending for oral argument for a long time and ultimately exparte oral argument is heard and exparte judgment is delivered .
8) We have considered the evidence of the complainant Prahlad Kr. Agarwal and perused the documents submitted by the complainant from Ext. 1 to Ext.17. The claim of the complainant has been substantiated by the several documents including invoice and payment confirmation for the opp.party testified as Ext. 2 & Ext. 3. The Ext. 10 and Ext.11 are the legal notice and DTDC sending notice etc. which have corroborated the complaint petition. The exhibited documents like e.mail conversation are available on record which have made the complaint petition believable .
7) The deficiency of service under C.P. Act, 1986 is found against the opp.party and is found responsible for compensation etc. as claimed by the complainant . In the result, the case is decreed exparte with a direction to the opp.party to pay the cost of hand-set amounting to R.24,444/- with an interest @ 5% from the date of filing of the case along with compensation for mental agony etc. of Rs.20,000/- with a cost of litigation amounting to Rs.5,000/- which in our opinion is just and proper. The decretal amount will be paid within 45 days by the opp.party after received of the copy of judgment , failing which interest @ 12% need to be paid from the date of judgment till realization.
Given under our hand and seal of the District Forum, Kamrup , this the 26th day of August, 2021.
Sri Jamatul Islam Smti Archana Deka Lahkar Shri A.F.A.Bora
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
Shri A.F.A.Bora
President,
District Consumer Commission, Kamrup.
Typed by me
Smt Juna Borah
Stenographer, District Consumer Commission, Kamrup.
